From: Joris van der Hoeven <TeXmacs@math.u-psud.fr>
Cc: Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Resizing hash tables in Guile
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:52:12 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030213104406.8318D-100000@anh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1045081065.1033.451.camel@localhost>
> > I've been thinking that maybe we should continue the move and let the
> > resizing tables entirely replace the fixed size ones. It seems a
> > little silly to have to explain to Guile users that there are two
> > (sorry, eight) different kinds of hash tables... Also, I think the
> > opacity of the resizing table objects is an advantage rather than a
> > disadvantage. If they are opaque, we can any time modify the
> > underlying implementation (the well-known data abstraction argument).
> >
> > What do you say?
>
> I think that this is a a good idea, but I would like the optional size
> argument to still be there as an initial guess about the number of
> items to expect to avoid resizing and to optimize performance when
> we have advance information about how many items to expect.
In fact, it is even better to specify the resizing behaviour
using optional arguments. For instance:
up-ratio : size up when size/slots >= up-ratio
up-factor : new nr slots := old nr slots * up-factor
down-ratio : size up when size/slots < down-ratio
down-factor: new nr slots := old nr slots / down-factor
Using a small up-ratio will improve the constant factor in the lookup speed,
but require the usage of a larger number of slots.
> Of course this additional level of abstraction is nice as it also gives
> a future option to use trees if the user e.g gives an optional
> comparision operator.
Yes.
> By the way, Joris van der Hoeven mentioned that this type of resizing
> hash tables are faster than trees, which have a time complexity
> of O(log n)+reshuffling time if they are balanced. Do you have any
> numbers showing how much faster and if possible if there are any
> conditions? The reshuffling time will grow at least O(n) when the
> size of our linear tables increases if I have understood right.
Well: lookup time in a balanced search tree is O(log n),
while lookup time in a table is O(1)...
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-13 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-08 11:00 Efficiency and flexibility of hash-tables Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-08 13:57 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-08 14:14 ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-08 14:55 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-08 15:14 ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-08 15:31 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-11 11:14 ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-11 11:28 ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-11 12:50 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-08 15:44 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-10 9:55 ` Andreas Rottmann
2003-02-10 14:24 ` Greg Troxel
2003-02-10 15:00 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-10 16:52 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-10 17:09 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-10 17:11 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-11 13:59 ` Resizing hash tables in Guile Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-11 17:34 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-12 11:41 ` Marius Vollmer
2003-02-12 16:10 ` Marius Vollmer
2003-02-12 17:53 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-12 20:17 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-13 9:35 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-13 13:55 ` Harvey J. Stein
2003-02-13 14:24 ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-13 18:30 ` Harvey J. Stein
2003-02-13 20:02 ` Paul Jarc
2003-02-13 9:52 ` Joris van der Hoeven [this message]
2003-02-12 20:55 ` Rob Browning
2003-02-13 10:43 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-12 20:47 ` Efficiency and flexibility of hash-tables Paul Jarc
2003-02-12 21:58 ` Roland Orre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.GSO.3.96.1030213104406.8318D-100000@anh \
--to=texmacs@math.u-psud.fr \
--cc=gdt@ir.bbn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).